Dear PAO,

I applied as a pharmacy assistant in a drugstore in Quezon City last October 2024. I was told that I would be receiving a daily salary of P450.00 for the first two (2) months of my training; after which, I would receive the benefits of a regular employee. However, after two months of service, my salary remained the same. Thus, in May 2025, I spoke with my manager regarding my salary, but I was informed that I am not entitled to the benefits of a regular employee as I am still on training, and currently engaged as an apprentice. Is this legal? Is she correct?

Althea

Dear Althea,

Article 58 of the Labor Code provides the definition of an “apprentice” as “a worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship agreement with an individual employer or any of the entities recognized” under the law. Articles 60 and 61 of the Labor Code set out the qualifying criteria before an employer can employ apprentices, to wit:

Article 60. Employment of apprentices. Only employers in the highly technical industries may employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Article 61. Contents of apprenticeship agreements. Apprenticeship agreements, including the wage rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start below 75 percent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Department shall develop standard model programs of apprenticeship.

Hence, the law is explicit that before an apprentice or trainee may be hired, the following conditions must be complied with:

1. There must be a written apprenticeship agreement;

2. The employer must be engaged in highly technical industries;

3. The positions should belong to the apprenticeable occupations approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;

4. The wage rate of the apprentices should be prescribed in the apprenticeship agreement and should conform to the rules issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;

5. The apprenticeship period must not exceed six (6) months;

6. The wage rate should not start below seventy-five percent (75%) of the applicable minimum wage and in accordance with the apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Applying the foregoing in your case, it is mandatory that you and your employer must have entered into an apprenticeship agreement which complies with the requirements of the law before you can be considered an apprentice. However, it appears that you have not signed any agreement of such nature. Neither is the pharmaceutical business classified as a highly technical industry.

In addition, a pharmacy assistant role is neither considered an apprenticeable occupation, nor the same occupation was approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Your wage rate of Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (P450.00) is also less than the seventy-five percent (75%) of the minimum wage rate of Six Hundred Forty-Five Pesos (P645.00) in the National Capital Region. Thus, it is clear that your employment cannot be considered as an apprenticeship.

In Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., GR 114337, Sept. 29, 1995, Honorable Associate Justice Santiago Kapunan, the Supreme Court held that an apprenticeship program should first be approved by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the same being a condition sine qua non, prior to hiring apprentices or trainees, to wit:

xxx. It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.

Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine quo non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.

Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent’s assertion that he was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy (“kargador” or “pahinante”) deserves credence. He should rightly be considered as a regular employee of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code. [Emphasis supplied]

Hence, in the absence of both an apprenticeship program that was approved by the DOLE and an apprenticeship agreement that was signed by a worker, the latter should be considered as a regular employee.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].